‘Find a solution’: SC tells Delhi HC on ‘senior advocate’ designation

The court was referring to two Supreme Court judgments in 2017 and 2023 which laid down guidelines for designation of senior advocates in high courts and Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court on Monday raised questions on the composition and functions of the Delhi high court’s permanent committee after its recommendation to designate 70 lawyers as senior advocates last year. The recommendation sparked controversy after one of the committee members resigned for not being consulted before finalising the list.

‘Find a solution’: SC tells Delhi HC on ‘senior advocate’ designation

A bench headed by justice Abhay S Oka was considering a petition filed by Raman Gandhi who was in the consideration but did not appear in the final list. On February 17, the top court had issued notice to the Delhi high court registrar general and called for the permanent committee’s recommendation list.

Going through the report, the bench observed, “Under which law can the committee recommend names. As per our judgment in the Indira Jaising case (2017 and 2023), the permanent committee’s job ends with the assigning of points based on the criteria fixed by the top court.”

The court was referring to two Supreme Court judgments in 2017 and 2023 which laid down guidelines for designation of senior advocates in high courts and Supreme Court. Under Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, the Supreme Court and the high courts have the power to designate senior advocates with their consent. The Supreme Court Rules, 2013 also has similar provision.

The bench, also comprising justice Ujjal Bhuyan, also flagged that there can’t be six members in the committee. It said, “Our judgment provided for only five members. It has to be brought in conformity with our directions.”

The committee that recommended senior designation for 70 lawyers comprised the then chief justice Manmohan (since elevated as judge of the Supreme Court), justices Vibhu Bakhru and Yashwant Verma, along with three lawyers – additional solicitor general (ASG) Chetan Sharma, senior advocates Mohit Mathur and Sudhir Nandrajog. After the final list was out on November 29, 2024, Nandrajog resigned claiming that he was not part of the final decision-making process.

Nandrajog told the bench that the situation in Delhi is unique as it has no advocate general. “The first meeting of the committee was held on November 25, 2024. But the second meeting was never conducted. At least, I did not receive any intimation about such a meeting,” he added.

Further, the bench allowed four weeks for Nandrajog to file his response. Deferring the matter to March 21, the court told the lawyer representing the Delhi high court to ensure the matter is resolved without the court having to intervene. “You apply your mind and look into this aspect in what manner this can be resolved. Try to find out a solution by the next date,” the bench said.